storytime

And why, may I ask, should we believe Josephus any more reliable than whoever wrote the NT account of Philip, the brother of Herod?

patcleaver

There is clearly some fiction and exaggeration in Josephus, and it was, after all, just Roman propaganda. But its much much more reliable than the Gospels.

The internal evidence of the Gospels is that they are fiction. Nothing in the Gospels can be trusted unless its independently verified. Jesus never existed, Mary never existed, Joseph never existed, the apostles never existed, Paul never existed as a first century character. The Gospels are no more reliable than the Wizard of Oz books.

The fact that Dorthy was from Kansas, and there really is a Kansas, does not indicate that the Wizard of Oz is accurate history. There is lots of stuff in the Wizard of Oz that is true, but you could not determine what is true and what is not true in the Wizard of Oz except from external non-fictional reliable sources. You can not tell what in the Gospels is true of not true except from external non-fictional reliable sources.

storytime

I'll agree to a certain extent because I don't see Josephus as a trustworthy person of that history accounting.

I would personally rather say that nothing in the NT can be valid due to Old testament scripts which evidence the NT as false. For example, nothing in the OT makes necessary a messiah or a man proposing to be equal to God or as God. I read the NT story more as a teaching tool for the Jews, a testing example in laws established. Jesus being silent at his inquistion for instance, teaches how the Jews were not permitted to speak against the High Priest as the High Priest was the mouth of God. Or the silence may have been in acknowledging the command not to speak in offense to any of the brethren.

The Sabbath observance is another example. What did the Jews actually believe? Was the Sabbath created for man or man created for the Sabbath? What about the bill of divorcement as practiced in NT days? Was it a correct form of "putting away" or was death of a spouse the only loosing of the marriage bond?

Was Jesus guilty of blasphemy? According to OT, yes. The death penalty applied, and was to be carried out by Jews, not any other non Jews. My question is why did Jews deny they had authority to execute their own people?

andrewcriddle

I should have added that, as well as the Galilee, Herod also ruled Perea on the eastern bank of the southern Jordan. Given John the Baptist was baptizing in the wilderness by the Jordan, he was probably arrested, by Herod's people, somewhere in Perea.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Why do you want to believe any of them? Either one or both are erroneous.

Now, the authors of the Jesus stories are unknown, the author of Mark do not appear to have been a Jew. No well known author of antiquity made mention of the authors. The authors of the Jesus stories do not have any credibilty, Even Eusebius, the person who canonised the NT, gave bogus information about the authors.

On the other hand, Josephus was a Jew, he lived in Galilee. Josephus was well known by authors of antiquity even Eusebius used Josephus writings. Josephus has some credibilty.

storytime

hummm.. I agree with you. And, I don't believe any of them. I don't believe any of them. The authors of the entire bible are unknown. For ex., Who wrote the Moses story? Genesis? The entire thing is heresay.

Wasn't Josephus the Jew who miraculously survived Massada? How many historians think it a little suspect that this one lone Jew watched members of his party die in some sort of suicide pact? Considering Jewish laws, does such an event seem unlikely? Maybe Josephus was a Roman spy? I have no idea. Do you?

Why was it so important for Constantine to create a religion using a Jewish character[Jesus] instead of a Roman hero?

andrewcriddle

No. Josephus survived an earlier suicide pact at Jotapata where his position as leader allowed him to be last man standing. The Masada suicide was years later and Josephus was not directly involved.

Andrew Criddle

storytime

Thanks for the correction Andrew.

whichphilosophy

It's not possible to draw any conclusion as none of the accounts are indefeasible. The only answer is Inconclusive as to what actually happened.

Net2004

in support of the above account, a christian wrote:

WHAT DID PILATE DO IN THE FIRST YEAR OF HIS RULE, WHEN HE HAD THE SUPPORT OF SEJANUS?

He decided to place an EAGLE image in the city of Jerusalem. The Jews were offended and considered it a sacrilege, practically an idol in the city. Pilate was determined to have his way but the Jews protested, he threatened to kill them but they insisted by pacifically saying that they would bare their necks to be killed by the Roman soldiers rather that have the image in the city, and they were serious, hundreds of them. Pilate backed down, he was forced by Jewish oppostition to go against his will. And notice this was when he had the SUPPORT of SEJANUS, the second most powerful man in Rome.


NOTICE THAT THAT WAS IN 36 AD, AFTER SEJANUS' FALL IN 31 AD.

Also notice Jesus was killed in 33 AD, after Sejanus ' fall. In 36 AD Pilate was overthrown by a Samaritan denunciation but where he apparently acted right, because in the incident the crowd WAS ARMED. Anyway he was sent to trial. If he was sent to trial even though he had acted against an armed crowd then it is not impossible that he seriously took the threat the Jewish crowd in 33 AD threatened him with: to DENOUNCE him to the Emperor for releasing a man the religious leaders had said considered himself King of the Jews.

is any of this historical support for mark's account?